Green is the new Greed
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VOLKSWAGEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-03-16-48-44

yeah, what did you expect from a NAZI founded company?! :D

apparently, most of the cars breach emissions...but only VW cheated with 2 versions of software! ;)

Green is big oil. Wake up!

Greed infects all.

Grow up!

You only say that, because then, it covers your own greed.

When someone, without proof, makes a statement like that, it is always to cover the own failings. That is not being nasty that is just being truthful.

So if you cannot stand the heat. get out of the kitchen.

Green is the new Greed
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VOLKSWAGEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-03-16-48-44

yeah, what did you expect from a NAZI founded company?! :D

apparently, most of the cars breach emissions...but only VW cheated with 2 versions of software! ;)

Green is big oil. Wake up!

maybe you can elaborate more on that...didn't quite get it! :/

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Green is big oil. Wake up!

maybe you can elaborate more on that...didn't quite get it! :/

There's big money in saying your green

The new Black Gold , just say your green stuff the emissions

---

ExxonMobil under investigation for allegedly misleading the public about climate change

ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded oil company in the world, is under investigation over whether it misled the public and its investors over the impact of its business on climate change.

A spokesman for ExxonMobil confirmed Thursday that it had received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, related to the subject of climate change and was “assessing” its response.

Green is big oil. Wake up!

maybe you can elaborate more on that...didn't quite get it! :/

There's big money in saying your green

The new Black Gold , just say your green stuff the emissions

there's no way any ICE are a "green stuff"...one might be a greener, than the other one...but not green! ;)

why?
they are all pollutants...any other advertising is prohibited in EU! ;)

ExxonMobil under investigation for allegedly misleading the public about climate change

ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded oil company in the world, is under investigation over whether it misled the public and its investors over the impact of its business on climate change.

A spokesman for ExxonMobil confirmed Thursday that it had received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, related to the subject of climate change and was “assessing” its response.

that DA has some balls...given how some people involved with oil companies disappeared... ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

WMO - Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Hit Yet Another Record

“Every year we report a new record in greenhouse gas concentrations,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Every year we say that time is running out. We have to act NOW to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to have a chance to keep the increase in temperatures to manageable levels.”

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 – the most important long-lived greenhouse gas – reached 397.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2014. In the Northern hemisphere CO2 concentrations crossed the symbolically significant 400 ppm level in 2014 spring, when CO2 is most abundant. In spring 2015, the global average concentration of CO2 crossed the 400 ppm barrier.

“We will soon be living with globally averaged CO2 levels above 400 parts per million as a permanent reality,” Said Mr Jarraud

As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2
emissions, this is simply not true.

As we go greener and rely on less fossil fuel, more renewable
the more others will follow. And we are far from leading THAT pack.

China will eventually follow. They are still building infrastructure.
They will follow because it is a more advanced path, and it will make
economic sense.

You can not lead from the back of the pack. Time to step it up.

---

Janice

As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2
emissions, this is simply not true.

As we go greener and rely on less fossil fuel, more renewable
the more others will follow. And we are far from leading THAT pack.

China will eventually follow. They are still building infrastructure.
They will follow because it is a more advanced path, and it will make
economic sense.

You can not lead from the back of the pack. Time to step it up.

Sorry...

China will not be led by anyone. And does not believe that Western thought or ideas, are superior to theirs.

China has always been an Unlawful (in Western terms) Culture.

Just wishful thinking.

Maybe you should read this report from the congressional research service (2014)

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41748.pdf

China surpassed the United States in 2010 with over 41 GW of installed wind power capacity. Notably, however, approximately 18% of that capacity was not yet connected to the power grid in 2013.

The wishful thinking might be to think we could move forward
without the whine of "But how come THEY don't have to".

Never mind them, they will come along or be left alone at the store.

---

Janice

VWgate:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a18125/epa-road-testing-vehicle-emissions/
now, FTC got involved:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a17820/the-ftc-is-investigating-vw-for-calling-its-diesels-clean/
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past.

---

Janice

As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2
emissions, this is simply not true.

As we go greener and rely on less fossil fuel, more renewable
the more others will follow. And we are far from leading THAT pack.

China will eventually follow. They are still building infrastructure.
They will follow because it is a more advanced path, and it will make
economic sense.

You can not lead from the back of the pack. Time to step it up.

soft^spirit,

Uhh.... I believe you are mistaken on that statement.

In 2013, the USA emitted 5,297,581.2 kilotons of CO2.

In 2013, China emitted 10,281,178.02 kilotons of CO2, almost twice the emissions of the USA in that year.

In 2005, per that data set, China and the USA were roughly at parity, with the USA still having a slight lead. If I remember correctly, China took the lead in CO2 emissions in 2006.

Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2013&sort=des9


Note:
Note that these timeseries report country-specific CO2 emission totals of fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion). Excluded are: short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning) and large-scale biomass burning (such as forest fires).

Per Capita we would still lead by far. The problem is that is the WORST.
Lower numbers = better.

---

Janice

Per Capita we would still lead by far. The problem is that is the WORST.
Lower numbers = better.

Per Capita numbers are totally meaningless in this case. Only total emissions matter.

The climate does not change because *some* people put out 'too much' CO2 and others don't.

The climate is changing for quite a number of reasons, some anthropogenic, some not. Some are GHG related, some aren't.

Not all of the reasons that are both anthropogenic and GHG related involve CO2.

Not all sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions involve fossil fuel use and/or industrial processes. Don't believe me in this? Go study the IPCC reports.

To help you in your study, here is a link to the IPCC WG3 AR5 report's 'Summary for policymakers.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Pay special attention to figure SPM.2 on page 9.

AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use) accounts for 26% of GHG total emissions.

I have also previously linked a paper on the subject in http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74943&postid=1578261

Specifically to http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/147.

Read it, if you wish (sadly, it is behind a paywall, but the abstract is there).

Does pre-industrial warming double the anthropogenic total?

William Ruddiman1
Steve Vavrus2
John Kutzbach2
Feng He2

1University of Virginia, USA
2University of Wisconsin, USA

William Ruddiman, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, 291 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

Abstract

According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis, land clearing and agriculture caused emissions of greenhouse gases to begin to alter climate as early as 7000 years ago (Ruddiman, 2003). Climate-model simulations based on the CO2 and CH4 concentrations proposed in the hypothesis suggest that humans caused a global mean warming of 0.9 to 1.5°C before the start of the industrial era. Additional pre-industrial effects on land surface reflectance (changes in albedo resulting from forest clearance) may have cooled climate enough to cancel 0.2 to 0.3°C of this warming effect, leaving a net early anthropogenic warming contribution of between 0.7°C and 1.2°C. This proposed early anthropogenic warming is comparable with, and likely larger than, the measured 0.85°C warming during the last 150 years. If the simulations based on the early anthropogenic hypothesis are correct, total anthropogenic warming has been twice or more the industrial amount registered to date.

'The PROBLEM' is that there are way too d**n many people on the planet, and almost everything we do farks with the climate in one way or another.

Yes, putting up a solar panel or a wind-turbine is a nice, 'feel-good' gesture. But, in the long run they don't matter a tinker's d**n.

Essentially, did you EAT today? If so, then YOU are part of the problem.

The Global Population just prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 3,000,000.

The Global Population at the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 was about 800,000,000.

The Global Population today is about 7,284,981,000.

See the problem?

Only total emissions matter.
...
'The PROBLEM' is that there are way too d**n many people on the planet, and almost everything we do farks with the climate in one way or another.
...
The Global Population just prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 3,000,000.

The Global Population at the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 was about 800,000,000.

The Global Population today is about 7,284,981,000.

See the problem?

And China just got rid of the one child policy! We need that policy on a world wide basis. Yes, it will really screw up the capitalists, but not doing it will be much worse for them in the long run.

---

Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past.

not unless some Ice age is about to arrive...but that also will be far more better to heat up plant with extra solar mirrors in GSO than using fosile fuels!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

What proposals are there to quickly reduce our population by 25%, 50%, 75%, to preserve our planet for the remaining Humans?

They are working on that in the mid east.

---

Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past.

not unless some Ice age is about to arrive...but that also will be far more better to heat up plant with extra solar mirrors in GSO than using fosile fuels!
;)

Just, as Posted before: A 'Feel Good Solution' to over population.

Neither the destruction of Marxism, or another economic system, will solve the basic problem of supplying enough food for 7,000,000,000+ people.

What proposals are there to quickly reduce our population by 25%, 50%, 75%, to preserve our planet for the remaining Humans?

spoken like a true Rothchild or Rockefeller puppet! ;)

we have enough for a 10 billion people (in 2012)...it's the uneven distribution that we have hunger in the World:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

We waste a LOT of food today.
Stop doing that and the future problem is gone for decades.

Every year, consumers in industrialized countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (222 million vs. 230 million tons)
The amount of food lost and wasted every year is equal to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crops (2.3 billion tons in 2009/10)

Acrigulture also emits a lot of CO2 so the sooner we stop wasting food the better.